If you like Ballaster and his misquotes better than St Robert Bellarmine, I am not sure I should stay friends with you.

CS:

I'll be honest, I really don't believe in the political components of either the Catholic or the Orthodox faith. Truth is found in the hermits, priests, deacons, and monks who distance themselves from theological debate and political discord. Christ always spoke about the Samaritan as a model of virtue, and the Samaritans were not orthodox Jews, so there is something to be said about those who are virtuous but may have a distorted view of the faith.

I reject political religion, as I have yet to find Christ in it at all. The recent reaction by Rome to the worldwide sexual scandal (specifically in Ireland) proves that the political components of any Church are subject to demonic forces. Similarly, the Russian Orthodox Church and its involvement with the Bolsheviks are another example of how worldly politics can infiltrate and destroy Christ's Church.
We only find Christ in those saints who distance themselves from these worldly pursuits and focus on their fellow man, e.g. San Pio, Elder Porphyrios, Mother Teresa, St. Francis of Assisi and of course the Desert Fathers just to name a few both Catholic and Orthodox.

"If you like Ballaster and his misquotes better than St Robert Bellarmine, I am not sure I should stay friends with you."

Statements like that only substantiate my point.

"Truth is found in the hermits, priests, deacons, and monks who distance themselves from theological debate and political discord."

That seems to include neither Paul Ballaster, nor Photius. Or not Photius before end part of his life. Have I got you right there?

"The recent reaction by Rome to the worldwide sexual scandal (specifically in Ireland) proves that the political components of any Church are subject to demonic forces."

Wait, are you saying Rome's reaction is demonic?

My point against recent Rome is: it relied too much on psychiatry. And seems still to do so. Russian et c. Churches started doing so during Communist collaboration era, but have not stopped it yet.

St Francis of Assisi so did NOT distance himself from political involvement of religion. Read his collected works, specifically "Letter to the Rulers" (meaning mayors, doges, duces, kings, emperors, princes ... add presidents and prime ministers just for the fun of it)

My answer is: Rome's response to the sexual scandal is/was demonic, absolutely. It's failure to respond to such allegations many years ago and its recent 'cover-up'/finger-pointing tactics are quite demonic. There is a mass exodus from Christianity in Europe and it's not 'Modernity's fault' it's Rome's fault. I believe neither St. Peter nor St. Paul would have suffered men who touched little boys or had illicit sex with men to act as presbyters of God nor would they just 'relocate them' once they were exposed to avoid scandal.

I think the Orthodox perspectives on psychiatry are very healthy to be honest. The Orthodox perspectives on sin are some of the most profound pieces of literature I've come across, and the way to only way to repent for sins is to change yourself psychologically and spiritually. You have to be proactive in that resolution.

My position on political debates and dogmatic quarrels is that they have only led to further discord. Papal supremacy being the source of contention in both circles has created quite a rift between Christians that ought to be mended and not polemically pursued. Photius was quite conciliatory towards Fathers of the Church that he disagreed with or fell into error according to the Eastern Church. He didn't denounce them nor should anyone else. Theological debated become absurd because no one ever proves anything, and logic is not a limitation for God and His omnipotence/omniscience. We should be spending more time praising Him than arguing over which side is more Orthodox or who has the most flawless theological perspectives.

I think Assisi was trying to exhort people (leaders more specifically) to act like Christians. When we read Medieval History we see how the very worldly Western Church was running things.

"I believe neither St. Peter nor St. Paul would have suffered men who touched little boys or had illicit sex with men to act as presbyters of God nor would they just 'relocate them' once they were exposed to avoid scandal"

Up to Vatican II or so, they were defrocked. As was - for whatever reason, the one he alleged or another - the once Franciscan future Greek Bishop of Both Americas Paul Ballaster.

Afterwards they were sent to councelling. The covering up was part of that programme.

I believe that psychiatry is bad, not that Rome is. Once it recovers from alliance with psychiatry, that is. A thing needed your side of schism too.

[Defrocked=the "frock" (soutane or order's gown) was taken away from them, as the right to be sacerdotal pastors.]

@ Photius:

What if logic is rooted in the Logos?

@ St Francis:
He specifically asked them to have the praises of God shouted out three times a day. Which is why there was an Angelus Bell ringing once in Dublin. Or maybe still is. That may be worldly or not in the last respect, but as for means, he asked political power to interfere and asked that it be part of audible street life legally.

"I think the Orthodox perspectives on psychiatry are very healthy to be honest."

Did you then hear what the Roumanian Bishop of Western Europe said in 2008, Easter Pastoral?

He included "mental illness" in the main categories of suffering. Now that is giving psychiatry way too much. As Rome has been doing since ... sending defrockable priest to psychiatrist in stead of defrocking them. Or even more.

"There is a mass exodus from Christianity in Europe and it's not 'Modernity's fault' it's Rome's fault."

Calumniating Rome is part of modernity. Making Roman religion ineffective as to the making of happy Christian lives, specifically teen age couples, specifically people watched over by psychiatry without being fools in any classical non-metaphorical sense is part of modernity too. And it is indeed pushing people out from the love of God and neighbour. Compulsory school is part of that too, and is part of modernity. And Rome has not made school compulsory to age 16, modernity has.

In US in 1995, a girl could legally in some states quit school to marry, even at age 12. If that is no longer so, it is not Rome's fault.

A century ago, it was uncommon for teenaged boys and girls to be seated in the same class-room, or even unheard of, except within home schooled family members. Now it is practical part of school compulsion, part of the environment that made Klebold and his buddy shoot Cassie Bernall. As is Rock'n'Roll. Which did not even exist 100 years ago. And no, even if darwinism existed back then, it had not yet become part of compulsory school curricula as now. Nor had heliocentrism 200 years ago.

And you are seriously claiming Rome's men are worse scandal than schoolmen or scout leaders to push the scandalised out of faith? ah no! Which is why I unfriended you.

J, C, what is your take?

While we are talking: Rome has neither made nor failed to adequately answer about the AIDS epidemic. Claiming that one justifies contraception is wrong. Claiming it is "benighted" of Rome to say that is wrong. Doing it while pushing every pawn in the game to make young people sexually dissatisfied until "condom users" and not letting them get satisfaction as married and fertile couples is not the work of Rome, but of - modernity.

CS:

You 'friended' me in the first place, so you're unfriending me now means nothing to me, but it is interesting to note that you are willing to 'unfriend' me because my opinion is different from yours which is exemplary of Christian charity I assume. Am I that threatening to you that a different opinion warrants unfriending? All this keeps proving my point ab initio.

You must explain to me now how a scout leader or schoolman who abuses children is any different than a priest doing so, and if so how can that exonerate priests from such crimes based based on the fact that other people do it at well. That is perhaps one of the worst excuses i have ever heard, and once again this is classic sophistry for those who refuse to admit fault. Wrong is wrong, whether a priest, a pedagogue, a scout-leader, an uncle, a brother or a father does something like that. Let's stick with what we know. Rome knew about these abuses for many years, and did nothing about them, in fact the hiearchy of Rome chose to relocate these disturbed priests to avoid scandal (which has been proven by Church records). When defenders of Rome can say that was wrong, then I will listen to what they have to say, until then, they are simply defending something because they are afraid to think of what might be the case if they are wrong. The Holy Spirit is not guiding people who cover-up child molestation. The Holy Spirit guides the Holy, and that is all based an individual level because as we have seen Patriarchs and Popes have been guilty of heinous crimes. Catholics are not at fault, the politics in Rome is. The Catechism is wrong, the politics are in Rome is. The Mass isn't wrong the politics in Rome is. I trust my point is understood.

These conversation lead to discord which is why I never have them. Courtrooms are for the worldly, prayer is for the ethereal. I choose the latter.

"You must explain to me now how a scout leader or schoolman who abuses children is any different than a priest doing so" - not different, but about one hundred times more common.

"it is interesting to note that you are willing to 'unfriend' me because my opinion is different from yours which is exemplary of Christian charity I assume. Am I that threatening to you that a different opinion warrants unfriending?"

I am sorry, but I think some people who prayed for me have prayed wrongly, and God might be holding me responsible for befriending them in the first place.

What goes for stray thoughts goes for sad coincidences, goes for weaknesses of attention that were not there a few years ago, et c.

I set out to fight modernity in words. Orthos have judged me as uncharitable. I am trying not to give my flank to excommunications you might have had the authority over me since my separation from Rome a few years ago.

"Rome knew about these abuses for many years, and did nothing about them, in fact the hiearchy of Rome chose to relocate these disturbed priests ..." ... by COUNCIL OF PSYCHIATRISTS AFTER THEY DID THEIR COUNCELLING. Which means Rome did something, but the wrong thing, due to trusting psychiatrists.

The Gheoghan fellow who was killed in prison was relocated after having already been defrocked - because psychaitrists back then thought it only a matter of time before they could cure him by marriage for priests. Rome did not give up celibacy, he did not get chaster, but both parties trusted psychiatry.

[Or Rome did]

"Catholics are not at fault, the politics in Rome is. The Catechism is wrong, the politics are in Rome is. The Mass isn't wrong the politics in Rome is. I trust my point is understood."

In very recent Rome then. Since Rome started trusting psychiatry. In other words: Rome seconding modernity is at fault. QED.